If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Just why was Reitsma traded?

Originally Posted by Red Storm

princeton is right that Reitsma will eventually evolve into the elite closer that we actually needed, without recognizing it. However, it's also likely that this "rebuilding" team couldn't produce a viable rotation quickly enough to need that type of closer, nor could they still afford him (according to their M.O.) by the time he did emerge in that role. Like the trade or not (I can see where both sides are coming from) at least it's a trade which can be rationalized and understood, in concept.

yeah, I agree. The Reds want to build a staff for 2005-6, and don't expect to compete in 2004. Sound reasoning. I'm sure that they'd prefer to deal Jason LaRue or Sean Casey for starter candidates, but that wasn't an option. Aaron Boone was already gone yet more than Claussen was needed, so we've started to slice off guys that we project as setup men (Willie, Reitsma) thinking that we'll make more. While I personally think that dumping your best arms to improve your arms is paradoxical, it's what is available to us

Yet, I'm reminded of how we dropped Jeff Shaw thinking that we wouldn't be needing such a good closer in the near future, or could replace him, then had consistency problems at the end of ballgames during the next year's playoff run. Shaw begat Konerko who begat the important Cameron, but there were probably other ways of getting Cameron. Shaw was missed the following year, and wasn't so expensive either. Like Reitsma.

Re: Just why was Reitsma traded?

I still think it is too soon for Bubba he needs to polish his game up a bit in AAA before he moves on and I am confident and have heard nothing but good things about his pitching coach in AAA and of course the big league coach saw him pitch my self in World series when I was a kid when they played the Orioles well enough of my bull see you later

Re: Just why was Reitsma traded?

Originally Posted by Red Storm

By contrast, compare the fact that we shipped off the proven commodities of Williamson, Sullivan, Heredia, White, Mercker *COMBINED* and only received 1 pitcher who had ever pitched beyond the low minors in return (Belisle) and his value was still deflated at the time because of past injury. Their circumstances were different than Reitsma's, but they were all still viable, valuable and proven MLB relievers - and they netted a total yield of nothing. By contrast to those non-entities, Reitsma's trade landed a motherlode.

Yep. We can thank Allen for that. There wasn't a single person in baseball last July/August who wasn't aware that we were moving those guys no matter what. In essence, he turned those deals from the equivalent of an Ebay reserve auction to a no-reserve auction. It didn't take a fair offer, just the best offer. The results were predictable.

Really, though, only the Williamson deal irked me. OK, it irked me to move guys for cash instead of prospects, but we weren't going to hit any jackpots. White and Sullivan were expensive rent-a-players; Heredia was having a good year but would have been non-tendered last winter by anyone but the Yankees; and Mercker was a pure reclamation project. (Before we picked him off the scrap heap, Mercker hadn't had a sub-4.80 ERA since 1997.) But Williamson's a guy we should have received real value for, dammit.

Nonetheless, since last July we've added five young pitchers (Claussen, Harang, Belisle, Nelson, Bong) who at least made it to Triple-A without turning from prospects into pumpkins, and that's a dang sight better off than we were. I want to get to the point where we have a Cubs/A's-like pipeline going, but in the meantime, I'll settle for having enough options that we never again have to spend $2.5 million on the likes of Jimmy Haynes.

Re: Just why was Reitsma traded?

I agree with Red Storm that even though you don't agree with the trade, at least it appears that there was some forethought that went into it - and dare I say - a plan. Credit Dan O'Brien for that.

Problem is, I think this trade is symptomatic of a much bigger problem with the Reds, and a problem that will leave them mired in mediocrity.
Yes, the Reitsma trade netted two potential hurlers that probably can make an impact at the major league level someday. Much like it was just after the trade that grabbed Reitsma from the Sox for Bichette. What people need to ask is what's stopping them from doing the same thing in four or five years when Bong and Nelson have been up for 3 years or so, out of options, looking at arbitration? Unless something changes, you're kidding yourself if you don't think that they'll be shipped off for more prospects to build for 2008. How many years have they been playing that song in Cincy? This "plan" may help you keep your head above water in the division, but I don't think that it is going to net any championships in the near future.

Basically, the Reds have been operating as a high level farm club for the rest of the league (or at least those teams willing to spend some $$$). Reds do all the hard work in developing players, and then ship them off to other clubs when the price tag gets a bit too high. It's such a shame that management doesn't have ownership backing to try and cash in on some of these players instead of folding their cards as soon as the ante gets upped a bit. That'll get you broke in poker, and won't get you anywhere in baseball either.

I really think that it is time for the people and fans of Cincinnati to hold this team to a higher standard. I'd say something like stay away from the park so they know you're mad, but I think that ownership would use that as an excuse to pinch payroll even more. I don't know what to suggest - but I do know one thing. As long as this current ownership group is structured the way it is, whether it is Carl, or the Limiteds pulling the strings - the Reds are going nowhere.

Re: Just why was Reitsma traded?

Originally Posted by Catch22

But hey - at least you've got a shiny new park to play in.

At least Carl got booed in that park on opening day

But I agree with everything you say.. there's really no plan.. it's all a big shell game to swap players every 3-4 years to minimize payroll. As the Reds have shown, it's hard to even maintain your talent level doing only that, much less improve.

Thank you Walt and Bob for going for it in 2010-2014!

Nov. 13, 2007: One of the greatest days in Reds history: John Allen gets the boot!

Re: Just why was Reitsma traded?

They sold high on Reitsma. Smart move IMO on a team that wasn't going to realistically have much of a shot at winning a division. Bullpen arms can be picked up as the year progresses for far cheaper than what we got it we are in contention and need them.

You have to know what you have and be able to be realistic to get the job done as a GM. OBrien did it. He may have to go pick up a reliever later in the year if we continue to play well, but this was a good organizational move. There are always a bunch of relievers available at the trade deadline.

Re: Just why was Reitsma traded?

Originally Posted by NDRed

Simple If either of the guys we recieved from the Braves end up a number 4 or higher starter we win; if not- we lose.

To be determined............

As time goes by, I've become persuaded, nearly convinced, that the proper way to evaluate a trade is NOT to wait and see. Teams are making a decision at a specific moment in time and none of them has the benefit of a crystal ball. While you can use ex post facto results as a measure of how well they evaluate and develop players, it doesn't alter the valuation decision made on the day of the trade.

Put another way, trades are really about the quality of the decisions you're making, not how the stars align after you've made those decisions.

For instance, I will like the Chris Reitsma trade even if Reitsma goes on to have a stellar career and Nelson and Bong never amount to anything. Nelson's what the Reds need, an advanced prospect with a legitimate shot at being a power pitcher in the majors. However, I think the trade is a lousy idea if the team made it with with 2005/6 in mind. Bubba's probably not going to be an impact pitcher in the majors on that timetable. He very well might need to return to AAA next year and master that level before he's ready for his major league apprenticeship. Nothing wrong with that, he'll be 23 next season. He really is a kid. And it might take him two, three years before he starts dealing against major league hitters. So Bubba Nelson might not be reaching his potential until something like 2008 (when he'll be 27 to start the season). And that's fine because he's got good potential and the Reds needed a guy like that. Toss in a wild card like Bong and I think it was a good time to cash in Reitsma. Yet smart money would have Reitsma being the more effective pitcher over the next 2-3 years.

Conversely, the problem with the Williamson trade is that it was such a poor decision from a talent standpoint. The Reds got NO advanced prospects. It got one guy who was oldish for A ball and not all that dominating and a kid in rookie ball who might as well be named Sidd Finch at this point in time. Could the deal work out in five years? Sure, but the odds are extremely long. It was a bad decision if Scott Williamson never gets another batter out or if Scott Williamson goes on to make hitters look silly for a decade.

Touching on Crash's post, the real proof of life for the Reds will be if they can make a Reitsma deal in reverse. Sure, they needed to shore up the starting pitching ranks. Yet what if Milwaukee kicked Ben Sheets into the market? He's young, relatively inexpensive and just starting to reach his potential. If you've got a 2005/6 plan, then he's the kind of pitcher you should be acquiring. He is exactly what the Reds need. I don't mind the Reds shuttling out contracts and making value trades if at some point they're willing to pounce on the salaried talent that can propel them to a better class of baseball.

It can't be a one-way street. If arb-eligibles only drive in the outbound lane, it doesn't matter if the team makes a good call on a guy like Reitsma. The Reds have to find a way to retain and acquire arb-eligibles as well as send them packing. No one's winning anything with a team comprised of Year 1-3 players. It's the activity on the inbound lane which will define this team and DanO's stewardship of it.

Baseball isn't a magic trick ... it doesn't get spoiled if you figure out how it works. - gonelong

Re: Just why was Reitsma traded?

M2. You make some good points. I agree with a lot of what you say.

Actually, my main problem is that most of the bullpen was given away
for nothing. The Reitsma trade was by far the best of all the reliever trades done.
(And even if we kept Reitsma, the pen would've still been a weakness this year,
although not as glaring).

However, I'm not sure a team like the Reds can plan for 2005-2006.
It's been difficult enough to collect quality prospects over the past few years
(see our success relative to the best in the industry). I think it would be
even harder to make trades to get a collection of quality prospects that you
think will all arrive at the same time (and then in theory, contend that year).

I don't think you were trying to imply that, but when you said, "If the Reitsma
trade was made for 2005-2006.." I wasn't sure if that's what you intended.

Thank you Walt and Bob for going for it in 2010-2014!

Nov. 13, 2007: One of the greatest days in Reds history: John Allen gets the boot!

Re: Just why was Reitsma traded?

Originally Posted by REDREAD

M2. You make some good points. I agree with a lot of what you say.

Actually, my main problem is that most of the bullpen was given away
for nothing. The Reitsma trade was by far the best of all the reliever trades done.
(And even if we kept Reitsma, the pen would've still been a weakness this year,
although not as glaring).

However, I'm not sure a team like the Reds can plan for 2005-2006.
It's been difficult enough to collect quality prospects over the past few years
(see our success relative to the best in the industry). I think it would be
even harder to make trades to get a collection of quality prospects that you
think will all arrive at the same time (and then in theory, contend that year).

I don't think you were trying to imply that, but when you said, "If the Reitsma
trade was made for 2005-2006.." I wasn't sure if that's what you intended.

That's exactly what I meant. In addition to what you said, there's a major league learning curve to get through. It's the province of fans to hold unrealistic expectations about when a player will arrive and how good he'll be from the outset. I include myself in that.

Yet take Brandon Claussen for example. I think he's a good prospect, underrated by BA these days, and that he's a guy who can become a good major league pitcher in time. Of course a lot of people thought he'd waltz in and be the team's ace this season. Obviously that hasn't happened. I'm sure Claussen will pitch in the majors this year and he'll probably see his share of ups and downs. Maybe next year, maybe in 2006 he'll become a good major league pitcher. It's only a rarified few who make it look easy from the first time they set foot on a major league field.

If the Reds really want to compete in 2005/6 they should be loading up on 3rd and 4th year players, guys like Chris Reitsma, who are staring their career seasons in the face.

Last edited by M2; 04-26-2004 at 04:31 PM.

Baseball isn't a magic trick ... it doesn't get spoiled if you figure out how it works. - gonelong

Re: Just why was Reitsma traded?

I think the trade is a lousy idea if the team made it with with 2005/6 in mind. Bubba's probably not going to be an impact pitcher in the majors on that timetable.

I'm sure that it was made with '05 and especially '06 in mind, and it wouldn't take a stellar performance for Nelson to beat the other guys that we'll have for those years.

Reitsma would be an even better pitcher to have around for those seasons, so I agree that it could be a lousy idea. But the Reds want to spend Reitsma's '05 and '06 arbitration awards in different areas.

a small market team has to get performance, and can only afford so many 5th and 6th year players -- and those that they can afford have to have really high performance quotients. The Reds are banking on Reitsma's performance quotient in '05 and '06 being too low. That may be right, but I wanted to see more of Reitsma first.

Re: Just why was Reitsma traded?

I'm sure that it was made with '05 and especially '06 in mind, and it wouldn't take a stellar performance for Nelson to beat the other guys that we'll have for those years.

Reitsma would be an even better pitcher to have around for those seasons, so I agree that it could be a lousy idea. But the Reds want to spend Reitsma's '05 and '06 arbitration awards in different areas.

The ability to beat out the Jimmy Hayneses of the world does not a contender make.

It's some fraction of the top percentile of prospect pitchers who are ready to make a difference at the major league level before their 24th birthday. I like Bubba Nelson. I think he's got a legitimate shot to be a good pitcher down the road. Yet he's not in that fraction of that percentile.

Good enough to make the rotation and get his tail kicked by major league hitters isn't a good 2005/6 plan, nor a particularly good development philosophy. I think we'd both agree that Bubba should show some consistent mastery at the AAA level before the Reds call him up the majors.

I'm sure the Reds are thinking along the lines you laid out, doesn't make it a less implausible idea. If the 2005/6 plan hinges on Bubba Nelson having a big season, then that's a bad plan. IMO, it was a good move that should pay off in 2007/8. I'm fine with that, but if the team needs to artificially advance the timetable, it's setting itself up for disappointment. Among other things, it's unfair to Nelson to burden him with unrealistic expectations.

Last edited by M2; 04-26-2004 at 04:30 PM.

Baseball isn't a magic trick ... it doesn't get spoiled if you figure out how it works. - gonelong

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most
importantly, enjoy yourselves!

RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball